Oklahoma, an exemplary dispute resolution system in special education.

Oklahoma ~
An Exemplary
Dispute Resolution
System in
Special Education
Profiled in June 2010
Center for Appropriate Dispute Resolution
in Special Education (CADRE)
Eugene, Oregon
CADRE is funded by
C e n t e r f o r A p p r o p r i a t e D i s p u t e
R e s o l u t i o n i n S p e c i a l E d u c a t i o n
P.O. Box 51360
Eugene, OR 97405-0906
541-686-5060 voice
541-686-5063 fax
cadre@directionservice.org
www.directionservice.org/cadre
CADRE is a project of
The Technical Assistance ALLIANCE
for Parent Centers at Pacer Center
www.taalliance.org
National Dissemation Center
for Children with Disabilities
www.nichcy.org
National Association of State Directors
of Special Education
www.nasdse.org
Mediate.com
Resourceful Internet Solutions, Inc.
www.mediate.com
Direction Service, Inc.
www.directionservice.org
This document was developed by CADRE,
a project of Direction Service pursuant to
Cooperative Agreement CFDA H326D080001
with the Office of Special Education Programs,
United States Department of Education.
The opinions expressed herein do not
necessarily reflect the position or policy of
the United States Department of Education.
The text of this document is in the public
domain and may be reproduced in its entirety
or portions thereof for noncommercial use
without prior permission if the authors and
their organizations are cited. Upon request,
this publication will be made available in
alternate formats. This document is also
available at the CADRE Web site:
http://www.directionservice.org/cadre/
Oklahoma Dispute Resolution in Special Education
One of Four Exemplary State Systems
Introduction
Between Fall 2008 and Summer 2010, CADRE, the National Center on Appropriate Dispute Resolution
in Special Education, undertook a process to identify state special education dispute resolution systems that are
particularly effective and to characterize those systems and their components in ways that will be useful to other
states that are considering improvement activities. Four states — Iowa, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin —
were identified as exemplars using the process described below. Profiles were developed so that these states’ dispute
resolution systems could be viewed in their entirety and used as potential models. Additionally, CADRE is cataloguing
items from each of these systems (policies, training materials, forms, brochures, evaluation instruments, etc.)
so that they are available for states and others who wish to implement practices or utilize materials that are being
successfully used elsewhere.
CADRE used a systematic approach to identify the characteristics of effective dispute resolution systems and the
underlying practices and functions that contribute to their successful use by state education agencies. As a first step,
fourteen states were identified through the application of the following criteria:
• compliance on State Performance Plan/Annual Performance Report (SPP/APR) Indicators Part B 16–17
and Part C 10–11 for Federal Fiscal Year 2006 (written state complaints investigated and due process
hearings completed within timelines);
• levels for performance Indicators Part B 18–19 and Part C 12–13 for Federal Fiscal Year 2006
(resolution meeting written settlement agreement and mediation agreement rates);
• support and utilization of stakeholder involvement in the design, development, and management of their
dispute resolution activities;
• investment in and support for innovative dispute resolution processes at the “early stages,” including
capacity building/prevention, early disagreement assistance, and alternative conflict resolution methods;
• history of using a broad range of required and alternative dispute resolution processes;
• integration or coordination across dispute resolution options;
• evaluation of dispute resolution activities to inform system improvements;
• involvement with CADRE’s Dispute Resolution Community of Practice activities (e.g., dispute resolution
coordinator listservs, national symposia, other CADRE activities); and,
• characteristics of organization and demography that would provide some variation among exemplar states.
No four states fully met all these criteria. Therefore, the criteria were applied as preferences for the purpose of
nominating states for OSEP approval. CADRE’s Director met with staff from OSEP to review the criteria and scoring
and consider other factors that might suggest worthiness of identification as an exemplar state. The final four
“exemplar states” were selected jointly by the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) and CADRE. CADRE
communicated with the State Director of Special Education in each of these states to advise them of their selection,
gauge their interest in participating, and secure a commitment of the staff time needed to successfully conduct this
project. Each state enthusiastically agreed to participate.
1
Dispute resolution practices exist within the context of a larger system, including the history and culture of the state
with respect to dispute resolution. Each profile presents an overview of the state’s dispute resolution system,
focusing on some common aspects of system performance and emphasizing the organizational characteristics that
seem to be critical for successful operation. While each of the four exemplar states is unique, it is worth noting that
they share common attributes. Among these are high levels of stakeholder involvement, investment in early upstream
dispute resolution processes, use of technical and content expertise, active participation in the CADRE Dispute
Resolution Community of Practice, engagement in continuous quality improvement practices, and thorough
documentation of systems.
In addition to the profiles, CADRE is now working with representatives from the exemplar states to identify and
document elements and features of dispute resolution practices that are effective and contribute to those states’ success.
An online searchable repository that will catalogue and provide easy access to resources that inform state improvement
efforts is also part of CADRE’s activities related to exemplary dispute resolution systems.
While these descriptions were being completed the partner state systems adjusted their operations as a part of their
improvement efforts: they rewrote awareness materials, modified evaluation systems, and adopted new procedures.
The profiles are, then, merely “snapshots” of these state systems at a point in time. This work begins an effort to capture
and communicate what works well and what will help states learn from one another rather than “reinventing the wheel.”
CADRE looks forward to participating in a continuing discussion about how states can design and implement dispute
resolution systems that capably support parents and educators to design effective programs for students.
This document was developed by CADRE as a project for Direction Service, Inc., pursuant to Cooperative Agreement
CFDA H326D080001 with the Office of Special Education Programs, United States Department of Education.
This system profile was compiled by CADRE staff members (Teresa Coppola, Anita Engiles, Philip Moses, Marshall Peter
and Richard Zeller) in partnership with state representatives. Any inaccuracies contained herein are the sole responsibility
of CADRE. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. Department of Education. CADRE gratefully
acknowledges the significant contributions of the following people, whose insight and expertise were of great assistance:
Oklahoma: Jo Anne Blades and Malissa Cook
Iowa: Dee Ann Wilson, Thomas Mayes and Eric Neessen
Pennsylvania: Kerry V. Smith, Cindy Judy, Dixie Trinen and Suzanne McDougall
Wisconsin: Jack Marker, Patricia Williams, Patricia Bober, Jan Serak, Jane Burns and Nissan Bar-Lev
US Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs: Tina Diamond, Hillary Tabor,
Lisa Pagano and Melanie Byrd
CADRE Consultants: Art Stewart, Tom Kelly and Donna Dickerson
2
Oklahoma ~ An Exemplary Dispute Resolution System in Special Education
Profiled June 2010
The CADRE Continuum of Processes and Practices
Oklahoma’s Dispute Resolution Options in Bold
For more information about the CADRE Continuum, see:
http://www.directionservice.org/cadre/aboutcontinuum.cfm
The Oklahoma State Department of Education (OSDE) serves as an excellent example of a state education agency
(SEA) contracting with an external entity to provide dispute resolution services for its IDEA 2004 Part B and Part C
special education programs. While the SEA maintains ultimate responsibility for coordinating procedural safeguard
activities found in IDEA and continues to directly coordinate investigations regarding formal state written complaints,
mediation services, due process hearings and appeals, and resolution meetings, all are managed by a relatively new
center housed at an institution of higher learning. On December 1, 2005, the Special Education Resolution Center
(SERC) was established at Oklahoma State University for the purpose of managing the special education due process
hearing system. Since then, SERC’s duties have expanded to include innovative programs that assist parents and
school districts to settle disputes at the earliest stage possible. SERC provides highly trained mediators to assist at
3
Intake Process
Telephone Complaint Procedure
If a person or parent calls the SEA with a particular issue or problem, the person is directed to a coordinator in the
department. Typically, a coordinator receives calls related to the particular content area they are responsible for,
but the department trains staff to work across areas so that if the primary coordinator is not available, the call is
directed to another member of the team. The coordinator receiving the call speaks to the concerned party and
any time with disputes over special education issues. It also provides highly trained facilitators for resolution
meetings held in conjunction with due process hearing requests. Additionally, SERC is increasingly involved
with the development and delivery of stakeholder training.
The terms used in the figures in this document are either drawn directly from or are shortened versions of data
element terms from Table 7, the dispute resolution data reported by states in their APR. Instructions and definitions
of all terms used for Table 7 reporting are available at: https://www.ideadata.org/documents.asp#collection
4
keeps a formal log of all calls. Following a call, with parental consent,
the coordinator contacts the school and attempts to help the parties clarify
issues and reach agreement. If coordinators are unable to resolve a problem,
they then provide information to the parties about other possible options —
including mediation, complaints, and due process hearings — and may
refer them to the Special Education Resolution Center (SERC).
Through SERC, the SEA provides annual training to its own coordinators
on good communication techniques, interest-based negotiation, and
other relevant skills.
Optional Processes
Stakeholder Training
In response to the need for conflict prevention skills training, SERC
developed a program called Good Meeting Management and began
delivering it to the staff of local education agencies (LEAs) and family
members of students receiving special education services in 2009.
SERC staff trained special education directors of the LEAs and then
offered the PowerPoint presentation for use within their local districts.
SERC has also implemented yearly training for the OSDE staff on
communication skills, including training for clerical staff who initially
take the phone calls. Additionally, SERC sponsors an annual all-day
“legal update” training conducted by a nationally recognized consultant
and provided to mediators, facilitators, and hearing officers. This training
is also open to educators, parent center staff, and family members.
Typically about 130 people attend the training, which is subsidized by
both Part B and Part C programs.
• Evaluation. Special education directors reported that material
from the Good Meeting Management program was very useful and gave
them some tools to begin developing skills with their staff. ODSE staff
believe the communication trainings have given them better skills to
handle calls from unhappy parties who contact the OSDE. The training
has helped them gain a better understanding of the source of anger and
that the anger is not directed at them personally. It has also helped
clerical staff be more patient and compassionate while directing calls.
Staff have developed better skills to act as intermediaries in conversations
between parents and schools in conflict, supporting better informal
complaint resolution.
Lesson Learned
Early in our work on dispute resolution,
we saw that the parties were already
firmly entrenched in positions when
they came to our center. Some cases
were resolved, and some were not.
We thought that earlier intervention
with the parties might have prevented
the deepening of conflict and hurt
feelings and anger. We explored ways
to build capacity at the local level to
address conflicts at an earlier stage,
which more likely would build
relationships rather than break them
down. We began to see that issues were
resolved as soon as they could be
addressed. We developed a training
program called Good Meeting
Management. At first we offered this
training through our center, but learned
that there is great cost involved and
that we could not reach all 540
school districts in a timely manner.
Now we are developing materials
that local districts can use for training
within their districts that will help staff
become more aware of how to build
better relationships with parents.
We have said for a long time that
outcomes are better for children when
parents and schools work together,
but we haven’t given schools the tools
to know how to do that until now.
Jo Anne Blades
“
”
5
Lesson Learned
In approaching stakeholders
for training, we reached out
to existing infrastructures
within the state. For example,
to provide conflict skills
training for school district
administrators, we
approached an organization
that was already trusted and
accepted by school district
administrators. We could have
provided our own training,
but by providing it through
an accepted and trusted
entity we were able to
reach more districts in
a direct and timely manner.
We are extending the
same training to other
stakeholders through their
existing infrastructures.
In doing so, we are able to
network the training to all
existing entities.
Jo Anne Blades
“
”
6
Stakeholder Involvement
An advisory council of stakeholders has been established pursuant to the
terms of the contract between Oklahoma State University and OSDE for
the management of the special education mediation, due process hearing,
and appeal systems. SERC formulates policies and procedures with the
advice of this advisory council and presents them to the OSDE as a
recommendation for positive change. It is the mission of the advisory
council to provide recommendations to SERC on: (a) the policies and
procedures of the special education mediation, due process hearing,
and appeal systems developed by SERC; (b) the recruitment, training,
and evaluation of mediators and hearings and appeal officers; and,
(c) the process of gathering viewpoints from a variety of stakeholders,
with the intention to foster good relations between the stakeholder groups.
One example of stakeholder involvement was the advisory council making
a recommendation to develop a system of payments to hearing officers
which was deemed more fair and reasonable. Another example was its
guidance to more effectively create capacity, especially for administrators,
to resolve disputes at the local level. This led both to implementation of
training programs at the annual administrators’ conference and to
schools applying for more customized training.
The advisory council is composed of 11 to 13 members who are recruited
to: (a) ensure a broad range of backgrounds and experience to reflect
the diversity of the state with respect to race, ethnicity, and types of disabilities
across the school-age span; (b) to constitute a majority of not less than
51% membership composed of parents of children with disabilities
across the school-age ranges defined by the IDEA; and, (c) to represent
the OSDE with one member, school districts with four members
(including a superintendent, a special education director, a regular
education teacher, and a special education teacher), mediators with
one member, and community interests with one member.
Members of the council come from locations throughout Oklahoma
with about half having personal experience with the dispute resolution
system. School membership reflects small, medium, large, rural, and urban
districts. Representatives are encouraged to work with their own district
as a team to represent school district views on the advisory council.
Membership is generally for a two-year term. Members are selected by a
nominating committee consisting of one school district representative,
one parent representative, and the director and program manager of SERC.
7
Resolution Meeting Facilitation
SERC has also made their special education mediators available to serve as facilitators for resolution meetings, with a
goal of at least half the meetings to be facilitated. These facilitators are available when both the parents and school
district request participation of a neutral third-party. Because the facilitators are independent contractors and not
directly employed by SERC, parents are required to sign a consent form to allow the center and the school district to
release information to the third-party neutral. The facilitators may contact the parties for a brief interview to establish
rapport, better understand the issues in dispute, and discover any underlying matters that may also be driving the
conflict. The facilitator’s role is to ensure that the parties have an opportunity to participate equally in a structured
setting, while adequately addressing the facts and issues raised by the due process complaint. The facilitator will assist
the parties in discussions about the due process complaint and attempt to reach a mutually acceptable resolution. The
facilitator does not provide legal advice and does not render a decision for the parties. Resolution meetings may be
confidential by agreement of both parties. Each party is responsible for understanding and adhering to applicable
timelines and deadlines for hearings and appeals in due process. In the past, the facilitator contacted the parties to
arrange a time and location for the meeting, but now SERC does this. Very few resolution meetings are not facilitated.
See figure 1 above for number of resolution meetings held. The success of OSDE and SERC with this facilitation option
is evidenced by a very high agreement rate as shown in figure 2.
• Staffing. SERC’s program manager supervises
a panel of five facilitators, all of whom are
independent contractors.
• Qualifications. SERC does not require
resolution meeting facilitators to have a law degree,
although presently all of the facilitators do hold a
degree in law.
• Professional Development. Meeting facilitators
are invited to attend national mediation and facilitation
conferences. SERC also provides ongoing training
each year to sharpen their skills for overcoming
roadblocks to settlement.
• Evaluation. Meetings conclude with an evaluation, and in the pilot year, SERC provided a statistical report
to document progress of the program. SERC now provides a final written report containing a summary of the
evaluations to OSDE within the contract period; evaluation data is used to identify areas of concern. All attorneys
for school districts have reported that they find facilitated resolution meetings helpful to their clients and would
like to see the program expanded so that it can be offered for all due process requests. They also commented
that this type of facilitation was far superior to mediation programs offered in the past.
Figure 2. Oklahoma Indicator B18
Written Resolution Agreement Rate
Source: APR Table 7 and Section 618 Data
8
Required Processes
Mediation
Until 2009, OSDE contracted with the Administrative Office of the
Supreme Court of Oklahoma as the sole provider of special education
mediation services through its Alternative Dispute Resolution Early
Settlement Mediation System. Following SERC’s success with managing
other aspects of the special education dispute resolution system,
especially the facilitation of resolution meetings (see above), SERC was
awarded a contract by OSDE to provide mediation services under IDEA.
Now, parties interested in mediation may download either a parent or
school district request for mediation form. SERC notifies the other party
of the request for mediation. After both parties have voluntarily agreed to
mediation, a mediator is assigned. The parent must also sign a consent
form releasing information to the mediator. Mediation sessions can take
up to a full day, although typically sessions are completed in three to
four hours, depending upon the complexity of the issue(s). It is recommended
that participants set aside a full day even though the session is likely to
conclude in a shorter period of time. For more information about
mediation in Oklahoma, see the website:
www.ok.gov/abletech/Special_Education_Resolution_Center/Mediation/index.html
• Staffing. SERC’s program manager supervises a panel of five mediators,
all of whom are independent contractors.
• Qualifications. SERC requires all of the special education mediators
to have experience as a mediator or to be a hearing officer. A law degree
is not required; however, at this time all mediators happen to hold a
degree in law.
• Professional Development. SERC provides training each year
to sharpen mediators’ skills for overcoming roadblocks to settlement.
Mediators are invited to attend national mediation and facilitation
conferences related to their duties.
Written State Complaints
As required, the OSDE has a formal complaint management system for
filing and resolving specific complaints under IDEA Part B and Part C.
Local educational agencies (LEAs) must also have procedures for filing
and resolving complaints. Complainants who file with the LEA have the
right to request an OSDE review of the LEA’s decision. Parents and other
interested individuals must be informed by the OSDE and LEAs about the
Lesson Learned
Initially, SERC sent only
written information
describing programs that
were available, particularly
about resolution meetings
and mediation. Parties did
not respond well to written
materials as a sole means
of communication.
Now, along with written
information, SERC staff
make personal contact to
ensure that the parties have
a meaningful opportunity
to make informed decisions
in their selection of
available programs.
The SERC program manager
instituted the practice of
making personal phone
calls to the parties to give
an overview of what would
happen in the first 30 days
of due process. In that call,
she offers the use of a
neutral third-party
facilitator at the resolution
meeting. The majority elect
to use the facilitation process.
9
complaint procedures, due process hearings, mediation, and other forms of assistance to ensure compliance and
to resolve disputes. If it is found through a complaint that the LEA failed to provide appropriate services to a child
with a disability, the resolution addresses both how to remediate the denial of services and how to provide the
appropriate services for the child. If a state written complaint and a due process request are filed at the same time,
any part of the state written complaint that is also the subject of the due process request (or that has previously
been decided in a due process hearing) is held in abeyance until the due process hearing resolves the issue.
The due process hearing decision will take precedence. OSDE staff has also been trained in the area of mediation
and can help members of the public resolve issues prior to filing a formal state written complaint. With parental
consent, the OSDE will make telephone calls to LEAs to assist in resolving issues between parents and the LEA.
This has led to a downward trend in the number of filed written state complaints. Additionally, the OSDE complaint
tracking system has led to more timely resolution of complaints. See figure 3 for data on the effect of OSDE
intervention and the complaint tracking system.
• Staffing. Complaint investigations are assigned to two full-time coordinators in the Special Education Services
division (OSDE-SES). These positions also include other duties.
• Qualifications. The positions require
graduation from an accredited college or university
with a Bachelors degree in special education, school
psychology, communication disorders, or other
closely related field. They also require (a) a valid
special education certificate, or a valid psychometry,
school psychologist, or speech-language pathology
certificate; (b) experience as a teacher, related
services therapist, school counselor, psychometrist,
school psychologist, vocational counselor, transition
employment specialist, or program administrator
(all with experience working directly with children
and youth with disabilities); and, (c) willingness
and ability to perform necessary job-related
statewide travel.
• Professional Development. OSDE-SES
provides professional development regarding the
handling of complaints. This includes both
internal guidance as well as training conducted
by leading national experts on special education law. The focus is on procedures for investigating a formal state
written complaint, tracking the timeliness of the complaint investigation, and information regarding IDEA requirements
that often lead to formal written state complaints.
Due Process Hearings and Resolution Meetings
Since 2005, SERC has managed OSDE’s Due Process Hearing system. Upon receipt of a due process hearing request,
0
2
4
6
8
Complaints
Filed
Reports
Issued
Reports with
Findings
Complaints
with Timelines
2003 - 04 2004 - 05 2005 - 06 2006 - 07 2007 - 08 2008 - 09
1
3
5
7
10
9
Figure 3. Oklahoma
Written State Complaint Activity
Events per 10,000 Special Education Students
Source: APR Table 7 and Section 618 Data
10
SERC provides general technical assistance to all parties to help them understand the requirements of the due
process hearing system. SERC assigns hearing officers at the time of filing for a hearing and takes steps to assist the
parties in meeting their responsibilities during the 30-day settlement period. A unique component of this system is
the provision of facilitators for resolution meetings to help the parties resolve their dispute (see above). The hearing
officer schedules a pre-hearing conference to ensure that the process moves along according to statutory
requirements. During the conference, the hearing officer leads a discussion about: (a) whether or not any party
intends to object to the sufficiency of the due process complaint; (b) whether the parties have been able to schedule
the resolution meeting or whether there is a joint written agreement to waive the meeting; (c) the time frame for
a response to the complainant’s filing; (d) whether any party anticipates the filing of any pre-hearing motions;
(e) any concerns regarding jurisdiction over the controversy, proper parties to the matter, or authority of the
hearing officer to grant requested relief; and, (f) whether the parties know how to make proper contact with the
hearing officer.
During the initial conference, the hearing officer will also set a time for a second pre-hearing conference in the
event the matter does not settle during the 30-day resolution period. The second pre-hearing conference will
address issues directly related to the actual hearing, including but not limited to further clarification of the issues
and issuance of subpoenas. Settlement of the matter is encouraged, if possible, at every stage. If the entire dispute
cannot be resolved, then the unresolved issues move forward to a hearing. This approach, along with other available
dispute resolution options, has enabled OSDE to resolve the vast majority of due process complaints without a
hearing (see figure 4). For more information about due process in Oklahoma, see the website:
www.ok.gov/abletech/Special_Education_Resolution_Center/Due_Process_Hearings/index.html
Figure 4. Oklahoma Due Process
Complaint and Hearing Events per Year
Source: APR Table 7 and Section 618 Data
• Staffing. SERC’s program manager supervises a
panel of approximately ten due process hearing
officers and three appeal officers, all of whom are
independent contractors. An attorney who currently
represents parents or school districts or who,
within recent years, has represented parents or
school districts, may not be assigned as a hearing
officer. Officers must attend state-mandated training
to maintain eligibility to hear cases.
• Qualifications. Hearing and appeal officers
are recruited from around Oklahoma and must
hold a Master’s degree or above in a field related to
special education or be an attorney. Preference is
given to attorneys based on their basic knowledge
of the law and expertise in conducting hearings.
All appeal officers must meet the minimum training
standards required of hearing officers and have
served in that capacity in Oklahoma for at least
two years.
11
Lesson Learned
Listen to the concerns of
your stakeholder groups
and work on shared goals as
a basis for making decisions
and developing program
guidelines. By listening,
you can take their needs
and respond to each with
separate ideas on how to
best assist parties resolve
disputes. This method
worked within due process
guidelines, as well as
mediation. It is important
for stakeholder groups to
know that they have a voice
and that their needs are
being met. When this is the
case, stakeholders are more
responsive to developing
guidelines that are also
fair to other groups.
• Professional Development. State-mandated training is provided on an ongoing basis and includes sessions
on administrative process, special education, and related issues. Training is also provided regarding Part C of the
IDEA, known in Oklahoma as Sooner Start. SERC brings in national experts on special education and special
education law to present on the latest developments in special education. Hearing officers are invited to attend
national special education conferences related to their duties. Participation in at least two formal group training
sessions conducted or approved by the OSDE is mandatory for all hearing
and appeal officers and trainees. The OSDE reserves the right to require any
hearing or appeal officer or hearing officer trainee to attend any additional
training sessions it deems necessary. All formal mandatory training sessions
conducted by the OSDE are presented by impartial consultants. All hearing
and appeal officers and trainees receive personalized training from the
OSDE consistent with their academic and professional backgrounds.
Ad hoc group training sessions and information updates are disseminated
to all hearing and appeal officers and trainees as necessary.
• Evaluation. Hearing officers are evaluated by both parties to the
hearing process, as well as by SERC.
Dispute Resolution Administration
Oversight
Overall responsibility for administering Oklahoma’s dispute resolution
system is conducted by the Oklahoma State Department of Education,
Division of Special Education Services (OSDE-SES). OSDE-SES contracts
with SERC at Oklahoma State University. SERC is staffed by a program
director, program manager, and administrative assistant. An Excel-based
log system allows OSDE to follow a student across required - mediation,
due process hearings, written state complaints — processes for
dispute resolution.
Relationship to General Supervision
Concerns are addressed weekly at meetings of OSDE staff in which the
discussion is focused around current technical assistance being provided.
This gives staff an opportunity to hear some of the issues surfacing
throughout the state and serves as a way to narrow down which LEAs are
struggling with compliance issues so that the Compliance Monitoring
Team may address concerns accordingly.
Culturally Relevant Aspects of the DR System
The advisory council includes parents with children having various
disabilities across the school-age span and is ethnically and
racially diverse.
12
Partner Organizations/Collaboration
OSDE-SES collaborates with the federally funded Oklahoma Parent Training and Information Center, Oklahoma
Parents Center, in offering Creating Agreement presentations, organizing state and regional conferences, and
promoting other activities to involve parents. The SEA has invited Oklahoma Parents Center to present trainings
at the meetings of Oklahoma Directors of Special Services (ODSS). Additionally, there are efforts to integrate
conflict management into leadership training.
Public Awareness/Outreach
Oklahoma makes available an array of informational resources related
to their dispute resolution options:
• Print materials and web/electronic resources
http://sde.state.ok.us/Curriculum/SpecEd/pdf/Docs_Forms/ComplaintBrochure.pdf
http://sde.state.ok.us/Curriculum/SpecEd/pdf/Docs_Forms/Mediation_Brochure.pdf
http://sde.state.ok.us/Curriculum/SpecEd/pdf/Docs_Forms/Due_Process.pdf
http://sde.state.ok.us/Curriculum/SpecEd/Compliance_SES.html
http://www.ok.gov/abletech/Special_Education_Resolution_Center/
The SEA created a parent-friendly handbook that explains principles of
special education and contains worksheets to assist parents in collecting
information about their child. It is available at the website
http://www.ok.gov/abletech/documents/mediationmanual2nd.pdf.
• Presentations. The OSDE-SES provides technical assistance on due
process guidelines, resolution meetings, and mediations through breakout
sessions at the State Superintendent’s Special Education Conference for
Teachers and Directors. The sessions focus on IDEA requirements for the
provision of procedural safeguards to parents, as well as the obligations
of LEAs after a due process hearing request has been filed.
Improvement Priorities
As part of the Oklahoma State Performance Plan, the SEA must
demonstrate that it maintains or increases the number of agreements
coming out of resolution meetings. The OSDE-SES recently hired an
additional complaint investigator to assist in the investigation of formal
written state complaints and in other activities.
Lesson Learned
In approaching conflict
resolution skills training,
we did not seek to train
exclusively about conflict
within special education.
Recognizing that conflict
arises in many areas of
education, we offered school
districts training in conflict
resolution skills targeted to
school leaders. We realized
that if school leaders had
effective skills to resolve
conflicts and engage in
difficult conversations in
general, special education
conflicts would also be
addressed. The training
provided dealt with conflict
in any area, and special
education conflict was used
as just one example of how
to deal effectively with
conflicts that may arise.
Jo Anne Blades
“
”
13
Key Oklahoma Leadership at the time this Profile was Developed
Sandy Garrett, State Superintendent of Public Instruction,Oklahoma State Department of Education
Misty Kimbrough, Assistant State Superintendent, Special Education Services
Malissa Cook, Associate State Director, Special Education Services
Linda Jaco, Program Director, SERC
Jo Anne Blades, Program Manager, SERC and CADRE Exemplar Contact
Oklahoma
State Department of Education
Special Education Services
Oliver Hodge Building, 2500 North Lincoln
Oklahoma City, OK 73105-4599
Phone: (405) 522-1464
Website: http://sde.state.ok.us/Curriculum/SpecEd/Default.html
Oklahoma Special Education Resolution Center
Oklahoma ABLE Tech
4825 South Peoria, Suite 2
Oklahoma State University
Tulsa, OK 74105
Phone: (888) 267-0028
Website: http://serc.okstate.edu
C e n t e r f o r A p p r o p r i a t e D i s p u t e
R e s o l u t i o n i n S p e c i a l E d u c a t i o n

Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.

Oklahoma ~
An Exemplary
Dispute Resolution
System in
Special Education
Profiled in June 2010
Center for Appropriate Dispute Resolution
in Special Education (CADRE)
Eugene, Oregon
CADRE is funded by
C e n t e r f o r A p p r o p r i a t e D i s p u t e
R e s o l u t i o n i n S p e c i a l E d u c a t i o n
P.O. Box 51360
Eugene, OR 97405-0906
541-686-5060 voice
541-686-5063 fax
cadre@directionservice.org
www.directionservice.org/cadre
CADRE is a project of
The Technical Assistance ALLIANCE
for Parent Centers at Pacer Center
www.taalliance.org
National Dissemation Center
for Children with Disabilities
www.nichcy.org
National Association of State Directors
of Special Education
www.nasdse.org
Mediate.com
Resourceful Internet Solutions, Inc.
www.mediate.com
Direction Service, Inc.
www.directionservice.org
This document was developed by CADRE,
a project of Direction Service pursuant to
Cooperative Agreement CFDA H326D080001
with the Office of Special Education Programs,
United States Department of Education.
The opinions expressed herein do not
necessarily reflect the position or policy of
the United States Department of Education.
The text of this document is in the public
domain and may be reproduced in its entirety
or portions thereof for noncommercial use
without prior permission if the authors and
their organizations are cited. Upon request,
this publication will be made available in
alternate formats. This document is also
available at the CADRE Web site:
http://www.directionservice.org/cadre/
Oklahoma Dispute Resolution in Special Education
One of Four Exemplary State Systems
Introduction
Between Fall 2008 and Summer 2010, CADRE, the National Center on Appropriate Dispute Resolution
in Special Education, undertook a process to identify state special education dispute resolution systems that are
particularly effective and to characterize those systems and their components in ways that will be useful to other
states that are considering improvement activities. Four states — Iowa, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin —
were identified as exemplars using the process described below. Profiles were developed so that these states’ dispute
resolution systems could be viewed in their entirety and used as potential models. Additionally, CADRE is cataloguing
items from each of these systems (policies, training materials, forms, brochures, evaluation instruments, etc.)
so that they are available for states and others who wish to implement practices or utilize materials that are being
successfully used elsewhere.
CADRE used a systematic approach to identify the characteristics of effective dispute resolution systems and the
underlying practices and functions that contribute to their successful use by state education agencies. As a first step,
fourteen states were identified through the application of the following criteria:
• compliance on State Performance Plan/Annual Performance Report (SPP/APR) Indicators Part B 16–17
and Part C 10–11 for Federal Fiscal Year 2006 (written state complaints investigated and due process
hearings completed within timelines);
• levels for performance Indicators Part B 18–19 and Part C 12–13 for Federal Fiscal Year 2006
(resolution meeting written settlement agreement and mediation agreement rates);
• support and utilization of stakeholder involvement in the design, development, and management of their
dispute resolution activities;
• investment in and support for innovative dispute resolution processes at the “early stages,” including
capacity building/prevention, early disagreement assistance, and alternative conflict resolution methods;
• history of using a broad range of required and alternative dispute resolution processes;
• integration or coordination across dispute resolution options;
• evaluation of dispute resolution activities to inform system improvements;
• involvement with CADRE’s Dispute Resolution Community of Practice activities (e.g., dispute resolution
coordinator listservs, national symposia, other CADRE activities); and,
• characteristics of organization and demography that would provide some variation among exemplar states.
No four states fully met all these criteria. Therefore, the criteria were applied as preferences for the purpose of
nominating states for OSEP approval. CADRE’s Director met with staff from OSEP to review the criteria and scoring
and consider other factors that might suggest worthiness of identification as an exemplar state. The final four
“exemplar states” were selected jointly by the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) and CADRE. CADRE
communicated with the State Director of Special Education in each of these states to advise them of their selection,
gauge their interest in participating, and secure a commitment of the staff time needed to successfully conduct this
project. Each state enthusiastically agreed to participate.
1
Dispute resolution practices exist within the context of a larger system, including the history and culture of the state
with respect to dispute resolution. Each profile presents an overview of the state’s dispute resolution system,
focusing on some common aspects of system performance and emphasizing the organizational characteristics that
seem to be critical for successful operation. While each of the four exemplar states is unique, it is worth noting that
they share common attributes. Among these are high levels of stakeholder involvement, investment in early upstream
dispute resolution processes, use of technical and content expertise, active participation in the CADRE Dispute
Resolution Community of Practice, engagement in continuous quality improvement practices, and thorough
documentation of systems.
In addition to the profiles, CADRE is now working with representatives from the exemplar states to identify and
document elements and features of dispute resolution practices that are effective and contribute to those states’ success.
An online searchable repository that will catalogue and provide easy access to resources that inform state improvement
efforts is also part of CADRE’s activities related to exemplary dispute resolution systems.
While these descriptions were being completed the partner state systems adjusted their operations as a part of their
improvement efforts: they rewrote awareness materials, modified evaluation systems, and adopted new procedures.
The profiles are, then, merely “snapshots” of these state systems at a point in time. This work begins an effort to capture
and communicate what works well and what will help states learn from one another rather than “reinventing the wheel.”
CADRE looks forward to participating in a continuing discussion about how states can design and implement dispute
resolution systems that capably support parents and educators to design effective programs for students.
This document was developed by CADRE as a project for Direction Service, Inc., pursuant to Cooperative Agreement
CFDA H326D080001 with the Office of Special Education Programs, United States Department of Education.
This system profile was compiled by CADRE staff members (Teresa Coppola, Anita Engiles, Philip Moses, Marshall Peter
and Richard Zeller) in partnership with state representatives. Any inaccuracies contained herein are the sole responsibility
of CADRE. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. Department of Education. CADRE gratefully
acknowledges the significant contributions of the following people, whose insight and expertise were of great assistance:
Oklahoma: Jo Anne Blades and Malissa Cook
Iowa: Dee Ann Wilson, Thomas Mayes and Eric Neessen
Pennsylvania: Kerry V. Smith, Cindy Judy, Dixie Trinen and Suzanne McDougall
Wisconsin: Jack Marker, Patricia Williams, Patricia Bober, Jan Serak, Jane Burns and Nissan Bar-Lev
US Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs: Tina Diamond, Hillary Tabor,
Lisa Pagano and Melanie Byrd
CADRE Consultants: Art Stewart, Tom Kelly and Donna Dickerson
2
Oklahoma ~ An Exemplary Dispute Resolution System in Special Education
Profiled June 2010
The CADRE Continuum of Processes and Practices
Oklahoma’s Dispute Resolution Options in Bold
For more information about the CADRE Continuum, see:
http://www.directionservice.org/cadre/aboutcontinuum.cfm
The Oklahoma State Department of Education (OSDE) serves as an excellent example of a state education agency
(SEA) contracting with an external entity to provide dispute resolution services for its IDEA 2004 Part B and Part C
special education programs. While the SEA maintains ultimate responsibility for coordinating procedural safeguard
activities found in IDEA and continues to directly coordinate investigations regarding formal state written complaints,
mediation services, due process hearings and appeals, and resolution meetings, all are managed by a relatively new
center housed at an institution of higher learning. On December 1, 2005, the Special Education Resolution Center
(SERC) was established at Oklahoma State University for the purpose of managing the special education due process
hearing system. Since then, SERC’s duties have expanded to include innovative programs that assist parents and
school districts to settle disputes at the earliest stage possible. SERC provides highly trained mediators to assist at
3
Intake Process
Telephone Complaint Procedure
If a person or parent calls the SEA with a particular issue or problem, the person is directed to a coordinator in the
department. Typically, a coordinator receives calls related to the particular content area they are responsible for,
but the department trains staff to work across areas so that if the primary coordinator is not available, the call is
directed to another member of the team. The coordinator receiving the call speaks to the concerned party and
any time with disputes over special education issues. It also provides highly trained facilitators for resolution
meetings held in conjunction with due process hearing requests. Additionally, SERC is increasingly involved
with the development and delivery of stakeholder training.
The terms used in the figures in this document are either drawn directly from or are shortened versions of data
element terms from Table 7, the dispute resolution data reported by states in their APR. Instructions and definitions
of all terms used for Table 7 reporting are available at: https://www.ideadata.org/documents.asp#collection
4
keeps a formal log of all calls. Following a call, with parental consent,
the coordinator contacts the school and attempts to help the parties clarify
issues and reach agreement. If coordinators are unable to resolve a problem,
they then provide information to the parties about other possible options —
including mediation, complaints, and due process hearings — and may
refer them to the Special Education Resolution Center (SERC).
Through SERC, the SEA provides annual training to its own coordinators
on good communication techniques, interest-based negotiation, and
other relevant skills.
Optional Processes
Stakeholder Training
In response to the need for conflict prevention skills training, SERC
developed a program called Good Meeting Management and began
delivering it to the staff of local education agencies (LEAs) and family
members of students receiving special education services in 2009.
SERC staff trained special education directors of the LEAs and then
offered the PowerPoint presentation for use within their local districts.
SERC has also implemented yearly training for the OSDE staff on
communication skills, including training for clerical staff who initially
take the phone calls. Additionally, SERC sponsors an annual all-day
“legal update” training conducted by a nationally recognized consultant
and provided to mediators, facilitators, and hearing officers. This training
is also open to educators, parent center staff, and family members.
Typically about 130 people attend the training, which is subsidized by
both Part B and Part C programs.
• Evaluation. Special education directors reported that material
from the Good Meeting Management program was very useful and gave
them some tools to begin developing skills with their staff. ODSE staff
believe the communication trainings have given them better skills to
handle calls from unhappy parties who contact the OSDE. The training
has helped them gain a better understanding of the source of anger and
that the anger is not directed at them personally. It has also helped
clerical staff be more patient and compassionate while directing calls.
Staff have developed better skills to act as intermediaries in conversations
between parents and schools in conflict, supporting better informal
complaint resolution.
Lesson Learned
Early in our work on dispute resolution,
we saw that the parties were already
firmly entrenched in positions when
they came to our center. Some cases
were resolved, and some were not.
We thought that earlier intervention
with the parties might have prevented
the deepening of conflict and hurt
feelings and anger. We explored ways
to build capacity at the local level to
address conflicts at an earlier stage,
which more likely would build
relationships rather than break them
down. We began to see that issues were
resolved as soon as they could be
addressed. We developed a training
program called Good Meeting
Management. At first we offered this
training through our center, but learned
that there is great cost involved and
that we could not reach all 540
school districts in a timely manner.
Now we are developing materials
that local districts can use for training
within their districts that will help staff
become more aware of how to build
better relationships with parents.
We have said for a long time that
outcomes are better for children when
parents and schools work together,
but we haven’t given schools the tools
to know how to do that until now.
Jo Anne Blades
“
”
5
Lesson Learned
In approaching stakeholders
for training, we reached out
to existing infrastructures
within the state. For example,
to provide conflict skills
training for school district
administrators, we
approached an organization
that was already trusted and
accepted by school district
administrators. We could have
provided our own training,
but by providing it through
an accepted and trusted
entity we were able to
reach more districts in
a direct and timely manner.
We are extending the
same training to other
stakeholders through their
existing infrastructures.
In doing so, we are able to
network the training to all
existing entities.
Jo Anne Blades
“
”
6
Stakeholder Involvement
An advisory council of stakeholders has been established pursuant to the
terms of the contract between Oklahoma State University and OSDE for
the management of the special education mediation, due process hearing,
and appeal systems. SERC formulates policies and procedures with the
advice of this advisory council and presents them to the OSDE as a
recommendation for positive change. It is the mission of the advisory
council to provide recommendations to SERC on: (a) the policies and
procedures of the special education mediation, due process hearing,
and appeal systems developed by SERC; (b) the recruitment, training,
and evaluation of mediators and hearings and appeal officers; and,
(c) the process of gathering viewpoints from a variety of stakeholders,
with the intention to foster good relations between the stakeholder groups.
One example of stakeholder involvement was the advisory council making
a recommendation to develop a system of payments to hearing officers
which was deemed more fair and reasonable. Another example was its
guidance to more effectively create capacity, especially for administrators,
to resolve disputes at the local level. This led both to implementation of
training programs at the annual administrators’ conference and to
schools applying for more customized training.
The advisory council is composed of 11 to 13 members who are recruited
to: (a) ensure a broad range of backgrounds and experience to reflect
the diversity of the state with respect to race, ethnicity, and types of disabilities
across the school-age span; (b) to constitute a majority of not less than
51% membership composed of parents of children with disabilities
across the school-age ranges defined by the IDEA; and, (c) to represent
the OSDE with one member, school districts with four members
(including a superintendent, a special education director, a regular
education teacher, and a special education teacher), mediators with
one member, and community interests with one member.
Members of the council come from locations throughout Oklahoma
with about half having personal experience with the dispute resolution
system. School membership reflects small, medium, large, rural, and urban
districts. Representatives are encouraged to work with their own district
as a team to represent school district views on the advisory council.
Membership is generally for a two-year term. Members are selected by a
nominating committee consisting of one school district representative,
one parent representative, and the director and program manager of SERC.
7
Resolution Meeting Facilitation
SERC has also made their special education mediators available to serve as facilitators for resolution meetings, with a
goal of at least half the meetings to be facilitated. These facilitators are available when both the parents and school
district request participation of a neutral third-party. Because the facilitators are independent contractors and not
directly employed by SERC, parents are required to sign a consent form to allow the center and the school district to
release information to the third-party neutral. The facilitators may contact the parties for a brief interview to establish
rapport, better understand the issues in dispute, and discover any underlying matters that may also be driving the
conflict. The facilitator’s role is to ensure that the parties have an opportunity to participate equally in a structured
setting, while adequately addressing the facts and issues raised by the due process complaint. The facilitator will assist
the parties in discussions about the due process complaint and attempt to reach a mutually acceptable resolution. The
facilitator does not provide legal advice and does not render a decision for the parties. Resolution meetings may be
confidential by agreement of both parties. Each party is responsible for understanding and adhering to applicable
timelines and deadlines for hearings and appeals in due process. In the past, the facilitator contacted the parties to
arrange a time and location for the meeting, but now SERC does this. Very few resolution meetings are not facilitated.
See figure 1 above for number of resolution meetings held. The success of OSDE and SERC with this facilitation option
is evidenced by a very high agreement rate as shown in figure 2.
• Staffing. SERC’s program manager supervises
a panel of five facilitators, all of whom are
independent contractors.
• Qualifications. SERC does not require
resolution meeting facilitators to have a law degree,
although presently all of the facilitators do hold a
degree in law.
• Professional Development. Meeting facilitators
are invited to attend national mediation and facilitation
conferences. SERC also provides ongoing training
each year to sharpen their skills for overcoming
roadblocks to settlement.
• Evaluation. Meetings conclude with an evaluation, and in the pilot year, SERC provided a statistical report
to document progress of the program. SERC now provides a final written report containing a summary of the
evaluations to OSDE within the contract period; evaluation data is used to identify areas of concern. All attorneys
for school districts have reported that they find facilitated resolution meetings helpful to their clients and would
like to see the program expanded so that it can be offered for all due process requests. They also commented
that this type of facilitation was far superior to mediation programs offered in the past.
Figure 2. Oklahoma Indicator B18
Written Resolution Agreement Rate
Source: APR Table 7 and Section 618 Data
8
Required Processes
Mediation
Until 2009, OSDE contracted with the Administrative Office of the
Supreme Court of Oklahoma as the sole provider of special education
mediation services through its Alternative Dispute Resolution Early
Settlement Mediation System. Following SERC’s success with managing
other aspects of the special education dispute resolution system,
especially the facilitation of resolution meetings (see above), SERC was
awarded a contract by OSDE to provide mediation services under IDEA.
Now, parties interested in mediation may download either a parent or
school district request for mediation form. SERC notifies the other party
of the request for mediation. After both parties have voluntarily agreed to
mediation, a mediator is assigned. The parent must also sign a consent
form releasing information to the mediator. Mediation sessions can take
up to a full day, although typically sessions are completed in three to
four hours, depending upon the complexity of the issue(s). It is recommended
that participants set aside a full day even though the session is likely to
conclude in a shorter period of time. For more information about
mediation in Oklahoma, see the website:
www.ok.gov/abletech/Special_Education_Resolution_Center/Mediation/index.html
• Staffing. SERC’s program manager supervises a panel of five mediators,
all of whom are independent contractors.
• Qualifications. SERC requires all of the special education mediators
to have experience as a mediator or to be a hearing officer. A law degree
is not required; however, at this time all mediators happen to hold a
degree in law.
• Professional Development. SERC provides training each year
to sharpen mediators’ skills for overcoming roadblocks to settlement.
Mediators are invited to attend national mediation and facilitation
conferences related to their duties.
Written State Complaints
As required, the OSDE has a formal complaint management system for
filing and resolving specific complaints under IDEA Part B and Part C.
Local educational agencies (LEAs) must also have procedures for filing
and resolving complaints. Complainants who file with the LEA have the
right to request an OSDE review of the LEA’s decision. Parents and other
interested individuals must be informed by the OSDE and LEAs about the
Lesson Learned
Initially, SERC sent only
written information
describing programs that
were available, particularly
about resolution meetings
and mediation. Parties did
not respond well to written
materials as a sole means
of communication.
Now, along with written
information, SERC staff
make personal contact to
ensure that the parties have
a meaningful opportunity
to make informed decisions
in their selection of
available programs.
The SERC program manager
instituted the practice of
making personal phone
calls to the parties to give
an overview of what would
happen in the first 30 days
of due process. In that call,
she offers the use of a
neutral third-party
facilitator at the resolution
meeting. The majority elect
to use the facilitation process.
9
complaint procedures, due process hearings, mediation, and other forms of assistance to ensure compliance and
to resolve disputes. If it is found through a complaint that the LEA failed to provide appropriate services to a child
with a disability, the resolution addresses both how to remediate the denial of services and how to provide the
appropriate services for the child. If a state written complaint and a due process request are filed at the same time,
any part of the state written complaint that is also the subject of the due process request (or that has previously
been decided in a due process hearing) is held in abeyance until the due process hearing resolves the issue.
The due process hearing decision will take precedence. OSDE staff has also been trained in the area of mediation
and can help members of the public resolve issues prior to filing a formal state written complaint. With parental
consent, the OSDE will make telephone calls to LEAs to assist in resolving issues between parents and the LEA.
This has led to a downward trend in the number of filed written state complaints. Additionally, the OSDE complaint
tracking system has led to more timely resolution of complaints. See figure 3 for data on the effect of OSDE
intervention and the complaint tracking system.
• Staffing. Complaint investigations are assigned to two full-time coordinators in the Special Education Services
division (OSDE-SES). These positions also include other duties.
• Qualifications. The positions require
graduation from an accredited college or university
with a Bachelors degree in special education, school
psychology, communication disorders, or other
closely related field. They also require (a) a valid
special education certificate, or a valid psychometry,
school psychologist, or speech-language pathology
certificate; (b) experience as a teacher, related
services therapist, school counselor, psychometrist,
school psychologist, vocational counselor, transition
employment specialist, or program administrator
(all with experience working directly with children
and youth with disabilities); and, (c) willingness
and ability to perform necessary job-related
statewide travel.
• Professional Development. OSDE-SES
provides professional development regarding the
handling of complaints. This includes both
internal guidance as well as training conducted
by leading national experts on special education law. The focus is on procedures for investigating a formal state
written complaint, tracking the timeliness of the complaint investigation, and information regarding IDEA requirements
that often lead to formal written state complaints.
Due Process Hearings and Resolution Meetings
Since 2005, SERC has managed OSDE’s Due Process Hearing system. Upon receipt of a due process hearing request,
0
2
4
6
8
Complaints
Filed
Reports
Issued
Reports with
Findings
Complaints
with Timelines
2003 - 04 2004 - 05 2005 - 06 2006 - 07 2007 - 08 2008 - 09
1
3
5
7
10
9
Figure 3. Oklahoma
Written State Complaint Activity
Events per 10,000 Special Education Students
Source: APR Table 7 and Section 618 Data
10
SERC provides general technical assistance to all parties to help them understand the requirements of the due
process hearing system. SERC assigns hearing officers at the time of filing for a hearing and takes steps to assist the
parties in meeting their responsibilities during the 30-day settlement period. A unique component of this system is
the provision of facilitators for resolution meetings to help the parties resolve their dispute (see above). The hearing
officer schedules a pre-hearing conference to ensure that the process moves along according to statutory
requirements. During the conference, the hearing officer leads a discussion about: (a) whether or not any party
intends to object to the sufficiency of the due process complaint; (b) whether the parties have been able to schedule
the resolution meeting or whether there is a joint written agreement to waive the meeting; (c) the time frame for
a response to the complainant’s filing; (d) whether any party anticipates the filing of any pre-hearing motions;
(e) any concerns regarding jurisdiction over the controversy, proper parties to the matter, or authority of the
hearing officer to grant requested relief; and, (f) whether the parties know how to make proper contact with the
hearing officer.
During the initial conference, the hearing officer will also set a time for a second pre-hearing conference in the
event the matter does not settle during the 30-day resolution period. The second pre-hearing conference will
address issues directly related to the actual hearing, including but not limited to further clarification of the issues
and issuance of subpoenas. Settlement of the matter is encouraged, if possible, at every stage. If the entire dispute
cannot be resolved, then the unresolved issues move forward to a hearing. This approach, along with other available
dispute resolution options, has enabled OSDE to resolve the vast majority of due process complaints without a
hearing (see figure 4). For more information about due process in Oklahoma, see the website:
www.ok.gov/abletech/Special_Education_Resolution_Center/Due_Process_Hearings/index.html
Figure 4. Oklahoma Due Process
Complaint and Hearing Events per Year
Source: APR Table 7 and Section 618 Data
• Staffing. SERC’s program manager supervises a
panel of approximately ten due process hearing
officers and three appeal officers, all of whom are
independent contractors. An attorney who currently
represents parents or school districts or who,
within recent years, has represented parents or
school districts, may not be assigned as a hearing
officer. Officers must attend state-mandated training
to maintain eligibility to hear cases.
• Qualifications. Hearing and appeal officers
are recruited from around Oklahoma and must
hold a Master’s degree or above in a field related to
special education or be an attorney. Preference is
given to attorneys based on their basic knowledge
of the law and expertise in conducting hearings.
All appeal officers must meet the minimum training
standards required of hearing officers and have
served in that capacity in Oklahoma for at least
two years.
11
Lesson Learned
Listen to the concerns of
your stakeholder groups
and work on shared goals as
a basis for making decisions
and developing program
guidelines. By listening,
you can take their needs
and respond to each with
separate ideas on how to
best assist parties resolve
disputes. This method
worked within due process
guidelines, as well as
mediation. It is important
for stakeholder groups to
know that they have a voice
and that their needs are
being met. When this is the
case, stakeholders are more
responsive to developing
guidelines that are also
fair to other groups.
• Professional Development. State-mandated training is provided on an ongoing basis and includes sessions
on administrative process, special education, and related issues. Training is also provided regarding Part C of the
IDEA, known in Oklahoma as Sooner Start. SERC brings in national experts on special education and special
education law to present on the latest developments in special education. Hearing officers are invited to attend
national special education conferences related to their duties. Participation in at least two formal group training
sessions conducted or approved by the OSDE is mandatory for all hearing
and appeal officers and trainees. The OSDE reserves the right to require any
hearing or appeal officer or hearing officer trainee to attend any additional
training sessions it deems necessary. All formal mandatory training sessions
conducted by the OSDE are presented by impartial consultants. All hearing
and appeal officers and trainees receive personalized training from the
OSDE consistent with their academic and professional backgrounds.
Ad hoc group training sessions and information updates are disseminated
to all hearing and appeal officers and trainees as necessary.
• Evaluation. Hearing officers are evaluated by both parties to the
hearing process, as well as by SERC.
Dispute Resolution Administration
Oversight
Overall responsibility for administering Oklahoma’s dispute resolution
system is conducted by the Oklahoma State Department of Education,
Division of Special Education Services (OSDE-SES). OSDE-SES contracts
with SERC at Oklahoma State University. SERC is staffed by a program
director, program manager, and administrative assistant. An Excel-based
log system allows OSDE to follow a student across required - mediation,
due process hearings, written state complaints — processes for
dispute resolution.
Relationship to General Supervision
Concerns are addressed weekly at meetings of OSDE staff in which the
discussion is focused around current technical assistance being provided.
This gives staff an opportunity to hear some of the issues surfacing
throughout the state and serves as a way to narrow down which LEAs are
struggling with compliance issues so that the Compliance Monitoring
Team may address concerns accordingly.
Culturally Relevant Aspects of the DR System
The advisory council includes parents with children having various
disabilities across the school-age span and is ethnically and
racially diverse.
12
Partner Organizations/Collaboration
OSDE-SES collaborates with the federally funded Oklahoma Parent Training and Information Center, Oklahoma
Parents Center, in offering Creating Agreement presentations, organizing state and regional conferences, and
promoting other activities to involve parents. The SEA has invited Oklahoma Parents Center to present trainings
at the meetings of Oklahoma Directors of Special Services (ODSS). Additionally, there are efforts to integrate
conflict management into leadership training.
Public Awareness/Outreach
Oklahoma makes available an array of informational resources related
to their dispute resolution options:
• Print materials and web/electronic resources
http://sde.state.ok.us/Curriculum/SpecEd/pdf/Docs_Forms/ComplaintBrochure.pdf
http://sde.state.ok.us/Curriculum/SpecEd/pdf/Docs_Forms/Mediation_Brochure.pdf
http://sde.state.ok.us/Curriculum/SpecEd/pdf/Docs_Forms/Due_Process.pdf
http://sde.state.ok.us/Curriculum/SpecEd/Compliance_SES.html
http://www.ok.gov/abletech/Special_Education_Resolution_Center/
The SEA created a parent-friendly handbook that explains principles of
special education and contains worksheets to assist parents in collecting
information about their child. It is available at the website
http://www.ok.gov/abletech/documents/mediationmanual2nd.pdf.
• Presentations. The OSDE-SES provides technical assistance on due
process guidelines, resolution meetings, and mediations through breakout
sessions at the State Superintendent’s Special Education Conference for
Teachers and Directors. The sessions focus on IDEA requirements for the
provision of procedural safeguards to parents, as well as the obligations
of LEAs after a due process hearing request has been filed.
Improvement Priorities
As part of the Oklahoma State Performance Plan, the SEA must
demonstrate that it maintains or increases the number of agreements
coming out of resolution meetings. The OSDE-SES recently hired an
additional complaint investigator to assist in the investigation of formal
written state complaints and in other activities.
Lesson Learned
In approaching conflict
resolution skills training,
we did not seek to train
exclusively about conflict
within special education.
Recognizing that conflict
arises in many areas of
education, we offered school
districts training in conflict
resolution skills targeted to
school leaders. We realized
that if school leaders had
effective skills to resolve
conflicts and engage in
difficult conversations in
general, special education
conflicts would also be
addressed. The training
provided dealt with conflict
in any area, and special
education conflict was used
as just one example of how
to deal effectively with
conflicts that may arise.
Jo Anne Blades
“
”
13
Key Oklahoma Leadership at the time this Profile was Developed
Sandy Garrett, State Superintendent of Public Instruction,Oklahoma State Department of Education
Misty Kimbrough, Assistant State Superintendent, Special Education Services
Malissa Cook, Associate State Director, Special Education Services
Linda Jaco, Program Director, SERC
Jo Anne Blades, Program Manager, SERC and CADRE Exemplar Contact
Oklahoma
State Department of Education
Special Education Services
Oliver Hodge Building, 2500 North Lincoln
Oklahoma City, OK 73105-4599
Phone: (405) 522-1464
Website: http://sde.state.ok.us/Curriculum/SpecEd/Default.html
Oklahoma Special Education Resolution Center
Oklahoma ABLE Tech
4825 South Peoria, Suite 2
Oklahoma State University
Tulsa, OK 74105
Phone: (888) 267-0028
Website: http://serc.okstate.edu
C e n t e r f o r A p p r o p r i a t e D i s p u t e
R e s o l u t i o n i n S p e c i a l E d u c a t i o n